Author
Topic: "zero damage is still damage" (Read 2220 times)

I'm thinking specifically about the FD Ransacker here, since even disarmed and doing 0 damage he will trigger the 3 damage to support zone.

Teremus explained your philosophy, which is that basically 0 damage is still damage for all intents and purposes. I understand it's convenient from the designer's perspective for a few reasons, but an ability thats says it triggers off damage firing off off 0 damage is pretty counterintuitive (keyword here). The character I immediately thought about to kind of make sense of this idea was the Flame Ram, BUT! the Flame Ram is actually worded differently: "If Flame Ram directly attacks an enemy fortress, it deals 15 damage".

If anything, if the "0 damage is still damage" approach remains as it is, the wording on Ransacker should be changed for clarity. At least the Flame Ram does it right, and doesn't feel counterintuitive even to an inexperienced player.

this also works for Fleeting Footman, the invincible defender's ability procs when he hits it. According to the coding, they are entering combat, even when the card says instead of entering combat, fleeting retreats to the support zone :/

Honestly, I main DoD, so I almost don't want fleeting footman to change, but I care more about correct syntax.

Logged

All the forces in the world are not so powerful as an idea whose time has come.

"NQQbz - It has it all! Noobz, Boobz and QQ'ing. I win the internet for today." — ChaosAngel

I think they changed something with immolate and fleeting footman some patches ago. With the release of the f.footman my Kali immolated him and killed him by that. But now it does not get immolated.To the ransacker: I declare myself in favour of changing the text to "when he attacks the enemies fortress [...]"